Salary stats?

Burrell College of Osteopathic Medicine
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
YouDontKnowJack

YouDontKnowJack

I no something you don't
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
948
Reaction score
4
Points
4,571
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
http://msn.careerbuilder.com/custom/msn/careeradvice/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=917

http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b29-0000 Specialties are further broken down here.


Just browsed this webpage as i was checking my email.
These are median stats from the bureau of labor stats. I'd assume these are more reliable than the few salary sites we've seen here.
though, the numbers do seem low...
1. Surgeons -- $177,690

2. Anesthesiologists -- $174,240

3. Obstetricians and Gynecologists -- $171,810

4. Orthodontists -- $163,410

5. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons -- $160,660

6. Internists, General -- $156,550
 
YouDontKnowJack said:
1. Surgeons -- $177,690

2. Anesthesiologists -- $174,240

3. Obstetricians and Gynecologists -- $171,810

4. Orthodontists -- $163,410

5. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons -- $160,660

6. Internists, General -- $156,550
Click to expand...

This list is lame. You (not really "you" the OP, but the people who put this out) really need to break down the subspecialties of medicine and surgery. Also, I know there is substantial regional variation. And does FP fall under "Internists"?

I don't know, this is just very hard to believe.
 
YouDontKnowJack said:
http://msn.careerbuilder.com/custom/msn/careeradvice/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=917

Just browsed this webpage as i was checking my email.
These are median stats from the bureau of labor stats. I'd assume these are more reliable than the few salary sites we've seen here.
though, the numbers do seem low...
1. Surgeons -- $177,690

2. Anesthesiologists -- $174,240

3. Obstetricians and Gynecologists -- $171,810

4. Orthodontists -- $163,410

5. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons -- $160,660

6. Internists, General -- $156,550
Click to expand...


They seem a bit low, although some not absurdly so. Are they perhaps factoring in residents and fellows into those numbers?
 
Does anyone know if salary averages are usually calculated after expenses like malpractice insurance are paid? Would the above amounts be how much you would actually take home?
 
BATiger said:
Does anyone know if salary averages are usually calculated after expenses like malpractice insurance are paid? Would the above amounts be how much you would actually take home?
Click to expand...

All salary quotes you see, just like allied physicians, are after all expenses including malpractice. The number you see is your salary before taxes.
 
BATiger said:
Does anyone know if salary averages are usually calculated after expenses like malpractice insurance are paid? Would the above amounts be how much you would actually take home?
Click to expand...

Not take home, but gross after expenses but before taxes. Those figures seem more consistent with what I am hearing from practicing physicians except for the general practice figure, which is a bit on the high side.
 
Seem reasonable to me-surgery just is low because you think of speciality, orth or neuro surg being high but plain old general surgeons are definetly in the 130-150 range which tugs down the average since there is just not much demand for them like they used to be with all the specialities and subspecialities. Also they get like no reimbursments these days.
 
Chinnychin said:
Seem reasonable to me-surgery just is low because you think of speciality, orth or neuro surg being high but plain old general surgeons are definetly in the 130-150 range which tugs down the average since there is just not much demand for them like they used to be with all the specialities and subspecialities. Also they get like no reimbursments these days.
Click to expand...

Hence, giving the lenght of training and the hours logged during residency, you wonder if general surgery is worth the trouble these days.
 
sirus_virus said:
Hence, giving the lenght of training and the hours logged during residency, you wonder if general surgery is worth the trouble these days.
Click to expand...

Well, general surgery is still the door to certain surgical sub specialties like cardio-thoracic.

And yes, I know, some people question CT with all the work being done by interventional cards.
 
More accurately: Most people question CT with all the work being done by interventional cards 😉
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
gaswork.com has offers way above what was reported. And they're supposed to be the crappy ones that no one wants.
 
YupGypsy said:
gaswork.com has offers way above what was reported. And they're supposed to be the crappy ones that no one wants.
Click to expand...

I don't think these figures are unreasonable as averages, esp if you include residents, fellows, and academic faculty as well as people practicing in the community (who make more money).
 
Remember that these are averages. This probably includes residents, part-time physicians, etc.

I've talked to a # of physicians at my med school about money. In Lubbock, we have radiologists making $500,000. I've talked to a couple orthopods in the $600,000 range. These are physicians working full time.

FP range seems about correct. Maybe psych also, but there rest is way off compared to every physician I've spoken with.
 
The real question that should be asked is, do you think you will see yourself making $500,000 per year? The chances of a person making more money then the Preseident of the United States is very low (outside of people who do entertainment...like athletes and singers).

TexPre-Med said:
Remember that these are averages. This probably includes residents, part-time physicians, etc.

I've talked to a # of physicians at my med school about money. In Lubbock, we have radiologists making $500,000. I've talked to a couple orthopods in the $600,000 range. These are physicians working full time.

FP range seems about correct. Maybe psych also, but there rest is way off compared to every physician I've spoken with.
Click to expand...
 
Genetics said:
The real question that should be asked is, do you think you will see yourself making $500,000 per year? The chances of a person making more money then the Preseident of the United States is very low (outside of people who do entertainment...like athletes and singers).
Click to expand...

I beleive the President earns $400k. Entertainers and athletes represent a very small minority of people who earn that kind of income. They just are more public about their income, and are perceived not to work for it, so they get made examples. Many people in finance, law, medicine, business, banking and the like earn more than the prez.
 
Either those stats are accurate, or most docs are cheating the IRS. 🙂

You cant say these stats are "way off" based on the 3 or 4 docs you've spoken to. Sure, your town has a radiologist making a million bucks. But for each making a mil, how many are making 10x less?

I think a government bureau would have more accurate information than your private allied health website. They probably have access to IRS data, and they definitely have a huge sample size.

Are they factoring in resident salaries into these median salary figures? I kinda doubt it, because considering how many FP and IM residents there are, and their $45000 salaries, that would bring the median salary waaaaaay down.



More detailed stats at the source: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b29-0000

interesting figures when they break it down by city and state. Salaries are highest overall in the midwest and southern states.
 
YouDontKnowJack said:
Are they factoring in resident salaries into these median salary figures? I kinda doubt it, because considering how many FP and IM residents there are, and their $45000 salaries, that would bring the median salary waaaaaay down.
Click to expand...

But keep in mind how many residents there are compared to how many practicing physicians there are. If an FM residency is 3 years and the average post residency length of practice is 30 yrs (assuming no large swings in numbers entering vs leaving the field) then residents are about 9% of the total family physician pool. This wouldn't really affect median. This would bring down mean some but not so much as to make the stated figures unrealistic.
 
YouDontKnowJack said:
Are they factoring in resident salaries into these median salary figures? I kinda doubt it, because considering how many FP and IM residents there are, and their $45000 salaries, that would bring the median salary waaaaaay down.
Click to expand...

That's probably not so. There are only 3 or so years worth of FP or IM residents. There are 40 years worth of post reseidency FPs practicing. The effects should be seen, but relatively modest.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
Dakota said:
But keep in mind how many residents there are compared to how many practicing physicians there are. If an FM residency is 3 years and the average post residency length of practice is 30 yrs (assuming no large swings in numbers entering vs leaving the field) then residents are just under 10% of the total family physician pool. This wouldn't really affect median. This would bring down mean some however.
Click to expand...

You beat me to the punch.
 
Further, if you look at the stats, and divide the mean income by the median hourly wage (mean hourly wage is not listed for incomes about $145,000), you would see the typical surgeon is listed as putting in 40 hours a week. Take this as you will.
 
Aha! I found the catch. If you look up the footnote for mean annual income it reads:

(2) Annual wages have been calculated by multiplying the hourly mean wage by a "year-round, full-time" hours figure of 2,080 hours; for those occupations where there is not an hourly mean wage published, the annual wage has been directly calculated from the reported survey data.

These numbers are accurate assuming a 40 hour work week. Therefore if you change the anesthesiologist work week to 60 hours, you get an "annual mean" of (174,240/40)*60 = $261,360. And of course, adjust this down if you take a few weeks off per year. This sounds much more in line with what I know about gas.
 
straight out of residency these days, you can easily snatch $200k+ in anesthesiology. But it's good that they low-balled these figures so the public won't whine about how much the greedy doctors make.
 
You are not reading that footnote correctly-it is saying for any docs more than 40 hours per week-their data was NOT calculated in the same manner-the per hour calc. Rather there info was drawn from a survey of those docs in that speciality and averaged-so the numbers are accurate and you cannot make that same calculation but using 60 hours-does not hold.

And by the way this does NOT include resident salaries folks
 
it's still better than telling them that anesthesiologists make $450k+ with partnership.
 
Chinnychin said:
You are not reading that footnote correctly-it is saying for any docs more than 40 hours per week-their data was NOT calculated in the same manner-the per hour calc. Rather there info was drawn from a survey of those docs in that speciality and averaged-so the numbers are accurate and you cannot make that same calculation but using 60 hours-does not hold.

And by the way this does NOT include resident salaries folks
Click to expand...

Where are you reading that people working in excess of 2080 hours per year are calculated differently? If indeed they are calculated differently then the mean wage per hour doesn't actually mean "mean wage per hour." My adjustment has the same effect as taking the "hourly mean wage" and multiplying it by a reasonable number of hours per week (60). Either the mean wage per hour is incorrect or the mean annual salary is incorrect or every physician averages 40 hours per week (which is contradicted by everything I've read, I'll cite Iserson's as one example).

I stand by my reading, unless there is another footnote or description I have missed (entirely possible). The footnote for 2 describes the per hour calculation unless per hour mean data is not published. For all of the physician catagories the per hour mean has been published. What am I missing?
 
My bad. I wasn't thinking and forgot there are 40 years worth of docs.

But i still really doubt they included residents in the stats. They're not really independent or licensed to practice usually.
 
I think we need to keep those low figures up. This way the public and government won't try to cut our salary. If the government knew how much most doctors make (most report low on taxes) then they'd definitely cut reimbursements again.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
YouDontKnowJack said:
They're not really independent or licensed to practice usually.
Click to expand...

"Independence" is not relevant. The first couple of years of any job you are not independent, and yet I suspect salaries of entry level folks in any industry are included in salary surveys. And don't you get licensed well before you complete residency (i.e. after a year?), making most residents licensed?
 
As someone who is nearing the process of looking for a job and having friends in multiple fields I can tell you this. those numbers arent even remotely close.

This is a little more realistic.

http://www.allied-physicians.com/salary_surveys/physician-salaries.htm

Keep in mind that these numbers are what someone makes prior to social security, retirement, and of course taxes!

There was just an article in ACEP (emergency medicine) news and EM docs make more than the 216K listed in the above link.

Here is another site which is also pretty accurate..

http://www.cejkasearch.com/compensation/amga_physician_compensation_survey.htm

One of the reasons for these discrepancies is that salaries vary by region and sometimes vary a whole lot. in EM the difference is around 40K based on where you work.
 
Law2Doc said:
Actually, I suspect most physicians are wage earners and thus have to report exactly what their salary is on their taxes, because their employer already reported the figure and bonuses for withholding/deduction purposes.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind not all docs are employed by someone.
 
Law2Doc said:
I don't know what salaries you have seen personally, but from the footnote of that survey, it clearly only covers practitioners in extremely large practices ("The average AMGA member group has 272 physicians and 13 satellite locations"), and thus is pretty clearly not representative of the national average.
Click to expand...

Well, so... question: in smaller practices like say 30 or 20 or whatever... the physicians make less? Or more? Thanks!
 
Law2Doc said:
Actually, I suspect most physicians are wage earners and thus have to report exactly what their salary is on their taxes, because their employer already reported the figure and bonuses for withholding/deduction purposes.
Click to expand...

You wanna bet?
 
OHMAN0125 said:
You wanna bet?
Click to expand...

If you have evidence to the contrary please do share, but I suspect the majority of physicians are not solo practitioners (or in two or three person partnerships where understatement might be an option, even if such persons all were inclined to break the law). A pretty healthy percentage of physicians are employed by partnerships, groups, or working for HMOs, hospitals and the like, from what I've seen, where an awful lot of people would have to be complicit if one were inclined to understate his income on his tax returns. Additionally, if a physician or group is working largely for reimbursement of insured or medicare/medicaid type patients, there are third parties who will be providing the government fairly accurate independent evidence of a practices' gross revenues, limiting how low you could report on taxes.
 
snoozer said:
Well, so... question: in smaller practices like say 30 or 20 or whatever... the physicians make less? Or more? Thanks!
Click to expand...

My guess would be less. But either way, it's difficult to look at that footnote and buy that this is a representative sampling since the "average" size group used does not approximate the situation of the typical US physician.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
YouDontKnowJack said:
Either those stats are accurate, or most docs are cheating the IRS. 🙂

You cant say these stats are "way off" based on the 3 or 4 docs you've spoken to. Sure, your town has a radiologist making a million bucks. But for each making a mil, how many are making 10x less?

I think a government bureau would have more accurate information than your private allied health website. They probably have access to IRS data, and they definitely have a huge sample size.

Are they factoring in resident salaries into these median salary figures? I kinda doubt it, because considering how many FP and IM residents there are, and their $45000 salaries, that would bring the median salary waaaaaay down.



More detailed stats at the source: http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#b29-0000

interesting figures when they break it down by city and state. Salaries are highest overall in the midwest and southern states.
Click to expand...



Ever done biostatistics? The amount of residents would have an effect, but with the number of physicians working, it would not bring the median "waaaaay" down. It would only slightly distort the #. But how many ways can you distort a statistic?

Doctors that make less because of working fewer hours would distort the number even if the gov't adjusted for the average amount of hours. What about physicians who also teach? Academians make considerably less because of fewer clinic hours. Every woman that has a child and takes time off, slightly drops the average.

All stats can be slightly skewed. Without making everything equal, numbers are distorted. Easiest way to find out how much you should be making, talk to someone in your field in the area you want to work. Find out about their situation and you will understand what you have to bargain with.
 
Here's an article published on the AMA news site which seems to reference similar salary figures (as of a couple years ago see the end; per word of mouth, and the fact that these articles are still coming out, the declining trend has continued over the last few years as well). So the above figures might be low regionally but perhaps not so totally off base for the profession at large.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/site/free/prsc0724.htm
 
How does the gov salary survey reflect education levels in different professions? I'm a chemist 4 yrs out of college and am certainly not making 63,000+
 
monwilli said:
How does the gov salary survey reflect education levels in different professions? I'm a chemist 4 yrs out of college and am certainly not making 63,000+
Click to expand...

What any given individual earns is not necessarilly going to be close to the average. It may just mean that there are groups earning substantially lower and groups earning substantially higher.
 
Law2Doc said:
What any given individual earns is not necessarilly going to be close to the average. It may just mean that there are groups earning substantially lower and groups earning substantially higher.
Click to expand...

Well said. The following is not a hate/no-love comment at all but would you say that women lower the avg. yearly salary? The percentage of women in the field was much lower in the past. With more women in medicine, there is a curb towards lifestyle which will decrease earnings. I know 2 part-time infectious disease M.D.'s that work 2 days per week, 10 hour shifts. 0 call.

I know that men can work part-time also, so combine older males working less in the field (academia) and part-time female lifestyle choices, and the overall range of pay could be substantial in any field. All depends on the hours and practice you set up.

I'm no accountant, but what about a physician with his own practice? Some funds are non-taxable in IRA's anyway etc. and depending on the type of corporation you set up, tax breaks. I would think this could have an effect on salary also. But I'm no expert on this.
 
TexPre-Med said:
I'm no accountant, but what about a physician with his own practice? Some funds are non-taxable in IRA's anyway etc. and depending on the type of corporation you set up, tax breaks. I would think this could have an effect on salary also. But I'm no expert on this.
Click to expand...

It may have a small impact, but there are percentage ceilings to how much of a tax break you can get with retirement plans, so I think this isn't going to move the average a whole lot, even assuming solo practices were the norm (which I don't think is the case).
 
does the hotjobs site include malpractice insurance and such?
and is it accurate?
 
captain bhangra said:
does the hotjobs site include malpractice insurance and such?
and is it accurate?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't put too much stock in those -- While the numbers didn't look wildly inaccurate to me, most physicians don't get their jobs through yahoo, and it's not at all clear that the "employer survey" data provided that that site (via salary.com) accurately constitutes a representative sampling or represents the full range of salaries out there. Plus if you read the methodology links it says that they compare reported ranges to the BLS data (that OP listed) for accuracy. So you are better off just looking at the BLS data YouDontKnowJack listed above -- cut out the middle man.
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
MGMA Salary Data Up to Date?
Replies
0
Views
1K
coconutlover
C
M
Salary vs. Experience
Replies
26
Views
9K
SurfingDoctor
SurfingDoctor
E
Salary as an MD vs. PhD
Replies
3
Views
5K
mistafab
mistafab
M
  • Locked
NYU Grossman Stats
Replies
1
Views
2K
GoSpursGo
GoSpursGo
Mad Jack
Comparisons Based on Most Recent Salary Survey
2
Replies
76
Views
15K
SurfingDoctor
SurfingDoctor
Top Bottom